What is the ruling of Islamic Law if the follower (maʾmūm) stands up for the third rakʿah out of forgetfulness while the imam has sat for the middle tashahhud?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
If the imam sits for the tashahhud while the follower (maʾmūm), out of forgetfulness, stands up for the third rakʿah, he is obliged to return to his sitting position, since following the imam is obligatory. In this case, no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw) is required of him. If, however, he fails to return, his prayer is rendered invalid.
Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "If the follower stands up alone out of forgetfulness, he is obliged to return, since following the imam is obligatory... If he does not return, his prayer is rendered invalid, due to his departure from what is obligatory." [Asnā al-Maṭālib,Vol.1/P.190] And Allah the Almighty knows best.
Is fasting obligatory for a child?
Fasting is not obligatory for a child until they reach puberty. Puberty is determined by well-known signs, the most common of which are: nocturnal emission (for both males and females), menstruation (for females), or reaching the age of fifteen lunar years.
A guardian must instruct their children to fast once they reach the age of discernment, which is around seven years old, if they are capable of fasting.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on wudu (ablution) when there is an adhesive substance on the hand that is difficult to remove?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The general principle is: if what is applied to the limbs of wudu' (ablution) does not form a barrier substance preventing water from reaching the skin, then the wudu' is valid despite its presence. However, if these substances prevent water from reaching the skin, the wudu' is not valid with their presence, and they must be removed so that water reaches the hair or skin without any barrier.
Shaykh al-Islam, the Imam an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "If there is wax, dough, henna, or similar substances on some of his limbs [of wudu'], and this prevents water from reaching any part of the limb, then his purification (tahara) is not valid — regardless of whether the amount is much or little. But if there remains on the hand or elsewhere only the trace and color of the henna, without its substance [i.e., the physical residue itself], or the trace of a liquid oil such that the water touches the skin of the limb and flows over it, though it does not remain [as a barrier] — then his purification is valid." [Al-Majmu' , Vol.1/P.529]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
Is the Saying "Whatever is Taken by the Sword of Shyness is Forbidden" an Authentic Ḥadīth?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The saying "Whatever is taken by the sword of shyness is forbidden" is not an authentic ḥadīth, though its underlying meaning is sound. The established sharʿī principle is that a Muslim's wealth is not lawful for anyone to take except with his wholehearted consent, as Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent." [Al-Nisā/ 29] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Listen to me and you will live well: do not wrong others, do not wrong others, do not wrong others. Indeed, a man's wealth is not lawful except with his full, willing consent." (Reported by Aḥmad in his Musnad.) Whatever is taken through the pressure of shyness or social embarrassment runs directly counter to genuine, wholehearted consent.
The jurists have explicitly stated that whatever is taken by means of the "sword of shyness" carries the same ruling as that which is taken by coercion — it must be returned to its rightful owner.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (Vol.3/P.30): "Do you not see the reported scholarly consensus that whoever has something taken from him purely out of shyness, without his genuine consent, does not pass ownership of it to the one who took it? They reasoned that this constitutes a form of coercion through the 'sword of shyness,' comparable to coercion at the point of an actual sword. Indeed, many people would rather submit to the literal sword and endure the pain of its wound than submit to this first kind of coercion, out of fear for their dignity and standing — which people of sound judgment hold dear and guard most fiercely." And Allah the Almighty knows best.
